1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

879 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

McKim Advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 879

Capture of killer whales. Mrs. Dailly –– 879

McKim Advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 879

Assault on migrant workers. Ms. Brown –– 880

Intentional log surpluses –– 880

Treasury Board directive 4-83. Mr. Howard –– 880

Termination of government employees –– 880

Regulations Act (Bill 31). Second reading

Mr. Nicolson –– 881

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 4). Second reading

Mr. Hanson –– 885

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 6). Second reading

Mr. Gabelmann –– 890

Mr. Parks –– 894

Mr. Mitchell –– 898

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1983

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

House to welcome some good friends and a visitor to our province. In

the gallery today is Mrs. Vlasta Lenko of Agassiz, British Columbia,

accompanied by Mrs. Georgina Hraska of Prague, Czechoslovakia, who will

be visiting our province for one month. Accompanying his mother and

aunt is George Lenko, who is a very good friend and a dedicated public

servant of our province.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to welcome two very

close friends of mine, Ron and Joyce Hatch. Mr. Hatch has served as an

elected official on municipal councils of the city of Prince George as

well as the city of Kitimat.

MR. CAMPBELL: I'd like the House to welcome Nicole Arnt, a constituent of mine from Okanagan North.

Oral Questions

McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary a

question. The day before yesterday the Provincial Secretary professed

complete ignorance regarding which agency handles the entire government

advertising account. I note that the minister promised to bring the

answer back as quickly as possible. I ask the minister again if he will

inform the House whether McKim Advertising has been reappointed as

agency of record for the provincial government.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member is a little repetitious. I took

that question as notice the last time he asked it, and I indicated to

him at that time that I would bring the answer back as quickly as

possible. That is a commitment I have made to that member, and that is

a commitment that I will honour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COCKE: It is absolutely incredible that the minister

responsible for government services in our province — and that minister

also has under him Doug Heal, with a staff of 200 persons and a budget

in excess of $18 million — is not aware of the advertising agency of

record for our province. Mr. Speaker, will the minister ask Doug Heal

the question?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Essentially the question is the same one as

asked a few moments ago, and I would start becoming repetitious like

that member if I was to respond.

MR. COCKE: I ask the Minister of Tourism whether, after 29

days, he, the minister, knows whether or not the police are involved in

an investigation or will be involved in an investigation, since I can't

ask the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the attorney general (Hon. Mr. Smith),

has answered that question in this House on many, many occasions, and I am sure

that if he were here he would give the same answer to that member.

CAPTURE OF KILLER WHALES

MRS. DAILLY: To the Minister of Environment. Sea World of San

Diego has an application before the National Marine Fisheries

Commission of the U.S. government to capture 100 killer whales. Concern

has been expressed that some of the whales to be captured normally

inhabit Canadian waters. My question is: has the minister contacted

officials of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and asked

his own staff to investigate whether this is in fact the case?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is no.

[2:15]

MRS. DAILLY: Would the minister please investigate, and when

he does, would he also investigate if it is indeed the case that the

U.S. whale-capture program will affect B.C. orcas. If that is

discovered, will the minister then assure the House that B.C.

representations will be made to the Seattle hearings of the marine

fisheries service?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order, hon. member.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I missed the first part of the question. I wonder if the member would repeat it.

MRS. DAILLY: The first part of my question is: would the minister assure this House that he will investigate this matter, and report back?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can assure the member that the ministry will investigate whatever is necessary, when the information is available.

McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: Some 29 days ago I asked the Attorney-General

whether he would bring in the police to investigate serious financial

irregularities in the Ministry of Tourism. Has the Attorney-General now

decided to bring in the police, or will he continue to delay?

HON. MR. SMITH: I welcome the question from the member.

Mr. Speaker, when the auditor-general's second report was released

on July 18 I immediately had officials in my ministry examine that

report and also study the documentation upon which that report was

based. As a result of their examination they have advised me that they

require the assistance of the commercial crime branch of the RCMP to

obtain access to further documentary evidence. I am able to advise the

House today that the commercial crime department of the RCMP will be

continuing the inquiry into the matters raised in the auditor-general's

report, and that the investigation is formally in their hands.

[ Page 880 ]

ASSAULT ON MIGRANT WORKERS

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the

Attorney-General, and it has to do with the fact that on Tuesday last,

three migrant farmworkers and a child were brutally assaulted in an

unprovoked attack near Keremeos. This incident is the most recent in a

long series, reflecting a serious climate of tension between community

and farmworkers from Quebec. My question to the Attorney-General is:

has he instructed his senior staff to review the seriously charged

situation in Keremeos?

HON. MR. SMITH: I will have to take the question as notice,

not having personal knowledge of the facts, and I thank the member for

the question.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is taking the question on notice, would he at the same time look into an editorial in the Similkameen Spotlight

of March 30, 1983, which states that transient workers "look like

discards from another planet and should keep moving, because we don't

need you." I wonder if the Attorney-General would undertake to review

this editorial on two grounds: one, to see whether it violates

section

1 of the Civil Rights Protection Act; and two, to see whether it

violates the mobility rights of workers as protected under the Charter

of Rights.

HON. MR. SMITH: I will not undertake the responsibility to

police the working press of this province and their editorials to

obtain for the House legal opinions, or to violate their freedom of

speech.

INTENTIONAL LOG SURPLUSES

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland). The report to the minister of the Special Log Export Policy

Committee states that a few large coastal companies intentionally

contrived a surplus of logs in excess of their own needs last year.

These companies embarked on an aggressive program to log specifically

for the export market, contrary to the intent of the Forest Act. Will

the minister advise the House which companies were involved in

contriving those log surpluses?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SKELLY: The government has to protect somebody, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, I take offence at that innuendo in the remark made by the member, and I'd ask him to withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: I'll withdraw and offer a supplementary.

What action has the minister taken to prevent companies logging specifically for the export market?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The remark was withdrawn.

MR. SKELLY: Did you miss that?

The supplementary was: what measures has the minister taken to prevent companies logging specifically for the export market?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That report which was commissioned by me

some months back is being reviewed, and appropriate changes in the

procedures for log export will be instituted in the not too distant

future. The reason I could not answer the member's question is that the

hearings and discussions which took place under the review by that

committee were confidential, and held to be so, between those people

who were involved and the commission. As a result, individual company

names were not identified. However, the problem was identified and will

be dealt with.

TREASURY BOARD DIRECTIVE 4-83

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I could direct a question to my good friend, the Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I'll withdraw if you want.

I would ask the minister whether there has been any change made to

policy directive 4-83, a Treasury Board directive of August 3, 1982,

specifically with reference to a provision in that directive that says

that attendance at out-of-province meetings and conferences will be

restricted to one representative from British Columbia. Is that still

in force or have there been any changes to it?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member will know that there are a number

of Treasury Board directives, but fewer than was the case some time

ago. Since the member has referred to a specific Treasury Board order,

which I do not have readily available, I will take the question as

notice and answer as soon as possible.

TERMINATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary.

A survey by the unemployed workers' union in Victoria, with the

participation of the University of Victoria, found that the

unemployment rate in greater Victoria is 20 percent, some 60 percent

higher than Statistics Canada reported. Unemployment in Victoria has

increased significantly in recent months, and the rate of increase in

the province is far higher than the national average. In view of this

alarming situation, has the minister decided to discontinue mass

layoffs of provincial government employees?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There are no mass layoffs of provincial

employees taking place. Some public servants in British Columbia have

been given notices of intention of termination. To suggest that there

have been massive layoffs is erroneous and false.

MR. BLENCOE: I disagree with him. Indeed there are mass layoffs in the province of British Columbia; there's no question about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, this is question

period; it is not a time for argumentation or debate. There are many

opportunities before us for that very purpose.

[ Page

881 ]

If we are going to abuse the purpose of question period, then we will waste time in points of order.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to get to my point.

If the minister won't reconsider the mass layoffs, will he at least

delay them to such time as new opportunities are available in the

private sector in greater Victoria?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member is suggesting that there are no

job opportunities in the city of Victoria, that people shouldn't be

laid off or given notice of intention of termination in the public

service. He's suggesting that people in Victoria are a special group,

that they shouldn't be obliged to go and seek work elsewhere. I don't

know what kind of a glass castle he lives in, but if he's suggesting

that when economic conditions change in the province, where job

opportunities exist in the province, that matter will be taken into

consideration.... But I'm not prepared to make any recommendations to

government that notices of termination be delayed until such time as

the economy of the city of Victoria improves. I know full well that

that city of Victoria, the municipal council and many other groups in

this community have kicked industry out of this community; they haven't

been welcome. He's suggesting that they care about industry in this

community. That's sheer rubbish and nonsense.

MR. SPEAKER: That is also argumentative, hon. members. This

is perhaps an ideal opportunity to point out to members how

argumentative questions in question period provoke argumentative

answers, and in fact really affect the value of question period. I

would commend, again, to all hon. members to review the rules that bind

us in question period.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 31.

REGULATIONS ACT

(continued)

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill 31 is, in the words of the

minister, an epoch-making piece of legislation which will hold the

attention of members of this House and keep them in their seats. He

also goes on to say that it is a matter of some important legislation

reform contained in this bill which they are proposing to standardize

various matters and manners in which regulations are conducted.

The Regulations Act really continues a trend which has been set by government:

that is, a trend to do by regulation what should be done in the Legislature.

I recall when the government brought in the ministries regulation act, by which,

instead of creating new ministries in the Legislature, the government was empowered

to simply create new ministries of government by regulation. The size of the

cabinet grew from what used to be an average of 15, 17 or 18 members, two or

three of whom would have been ministers without portfolio, to the size that

we see today. I haven't bothered to count the cabinet benches recently,

but I've seen them get up to 22 cabinet positions. Little positions were

dreamed up overnight by regulation — by this kind of action which we're

seeing in Bill 31, the Regulations Act.

[2:30]

We saw the division of the Ministry of Education into two separate

ministries by regulation. We saw the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) given sort of a senatorship. I

know that we don't officially have senators here in British Columbia,

but the member for Vancouver–Point Grey was made as a sort of cabinet

member emeritus here in the Legislature of British Columbia. The

splitting of this portfolio, which had been carried on quite

competently even by that member prior to his semi-retirement.... It was

one example of how something could be done behind cabinet doors,

creating a whole new bureaucracy: a whole bunch more deputy ministers,

assistant deputy ministers, associate deputy ministers and executive

assistants. Even in this year's budget, when this government is firing

all kinds of people.... I had the opportunity today to run into another

casualty of this government — you might say three casualties, because

it was a family of three people — a person whom I knew in my university

days. That's one more professional engineer without employment in this

province, because of the cavalier attitude with which the government is

finally trying to catch up with some of its mistakes of the past five

years.

Mr. Speaker, this government is seeking now to do more things through

regulation, not just by thinking things out and writing carefully drafted legislation

but by giving themselves, through this bill, the power to clean up messes which

are created and mistakes which they make through their sloppy, bull-headed actions.

They go rushing in without any thought and create all kinds of problems. Then

they say, by this piece of legislation: "We'll fix this up retroactively

by legislation." The poor person who gets caught up in being addressed

retroactively by this legislation.... It's bad enough to have legislation

that is retroactive, but sometimes it's necessary. But now we are empowering

the cabinet to make more and more regulations.

Another thing that this government is doing by this bill is removing

the action of proclamation. Proclamation is a royal assent. When we

come into this House we swear fealty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth,

her heirs and successors. But this government, by this legislation, by

changing proclamations to government cabinet regulations, is removing

us yet one more step from the Crown. I believe that this is an

incremental step; it's not a dramatic step. But it is an insidious

invasion of our tradition of a constitutional monarchy, and it is a

step down the road toward republicanism. This piece of legislation is a

concession to Rene Levesque, who would see all of Canada turn its back

on constitutional monarchy and adopt a different code of law — the

Napoleonic code, Mr. Speaker — and who would also see this country

become more and more a republic in its constitutional framework.

Proclamations are something that have been with us for a long time.

When a piece of legislation is passed by this House, it must be given

royal assent — His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor or the Administrator

enters this House and gives assent to a bill, because of the traditions

of proclamation. Mr. Speaker, it's no secret that proclamation

[ Page 882 ]

powers have been somewhat curbed; indeed, the very

evolution of legislatures and parliaments was the growth of

restrictions on the prerogatives of the Crown. But it reaches a point,

and a fine balance, where further erosion of the Crown presents a very

serious imbalance. Certainly the rights of parliament have not been

threatened or abused by the Crown for many, many years.

For instance, in Todd's 1887 On Parliamentary Government in England , second edition — that's the recent edition, Mr. Speaker — it says:

"From the epoch of the revolution of 1688, whenever

the Crown has ventured upon occasions of public emergency to use royal

proclamations or orders-in-Council which appeared to sanction any

departure from the laws of the land, the necessity for such providing

on the part of the government has been narrowly investigated by

Parliament. When it has been shown to have been illegal, although

justifiable, acts of indemnity have been passed to exonerate all

persons who have advised or carried into execution the same."

In other words, there might come the point in this Legislature when

the Lieutenant-Governor might realize that things have gone too far.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we could very well be at that point today with

some of the legislation that is before us, with an Attorney-General who

just a few minutes ago gave carte blanche to "hate" literature by

saying that people have a right to publish anything they want; it

doesn't matter if it's racist. People saying that certain types of

people should just keep moving through town: I never thought I'd see

that in British Columbia. I never thought I'd see that in a paper in

British Columbia, but having seen it in the paper.... Well, I shouldn't

say that. Certainly our memories are short if we forget what the papers

used to write about Orientals in this country back in the 1920s and

1930s. I didn't think I'd see that in the 1980s, but having seen it, I

certainly didn't think an Attorney-General of this province would give

carte blanche.

So there is a point where things may get out of control. We need

some system of checks and balances, one which is provided, I'll

concede, in most republican forms of government. So the check could

come from the Crown.

There was an incident in Spain not too long ago — I might even have to change

glasses to read it, because this is very fine print — in which rightist civil

guards seized parliament. Lieutenant-Colonel Antonio Tejero Molina is pictured

in this extract, one hand raised and a pistol in the other, after leading an

assault by civil guards on the Spanish parliament. Who saved the day in that

situation? King Juan Carlos I. I doubt if you would know that, my friend. The

thing you know is how to lose $2 billion in four short years. That's what

you've proven yourself expert at. Then, of course, there's the red-faced

minister, the "facha roja" in the background there — that short-tempered

Celt.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The King of Spain saved the day in that situation, and did not

recognize the junta which was attempted to be set up. He was

instrumental in serving the interests of parliamentary democracy by the

effect of proclamation.

What we are doing with this bill is removing proclamation. We are, by this bill, taking a step toward republicanism.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, I listened to what the minister said. I

listened to him and I heard him say that we're replacing a legislative

test with another test. But this particular piece of legislation, which

changes the key word from "legislative test" to "test," is another

manifestation of republicanism in this particular bill. I don't say

that in a left-right sense; I'm talking about in the structure of

various types of government.

There are many aspects to this bill. Some of the things that this

bill does are things which have always been done. It says that before a

regulation is enacted, it shall be submitted for examination to a

person designated by the minister. Well, Mr. Speaker, I should hope so.

I should hope somebody would look at legislation, and look at

regulations. It also says that a regulation has no effect unless it has

been deposited, and that the registrar won't accept the regulation for

deposit unless he is satisfied it has been examined.

All of this is a mask; a mask....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I

understand the second reading is on the principle of the bill. This

member is addressing very specific parts of the bill, which I think is

better done in committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken: during

second reading the principle of a bill is discussed, and the committee

stage is more appropriate for specific section-by-section debate.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds on the point of order.

MS. BROWN: This is a bill that deals with regulations; the

whole principle of the bill is regulations in other bills. You cannot

discuss the principle of the bill. If the minister had taken the time

to read the legislation he would know it is not possible to talk about

the principle of the bill without discussing what it does, which is to

deal with

section by

section in other bills.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If what the member says is true, then perhaps we should pass second reading and go to committee on the bill.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that late blooming parliamentarian on

the point of order.... The fact is, with any omnibus bill, or any bill

where the government decides to put together a number of different

principles, one has the right to debate each and every one of those

principles. Had he even thought about it, he wouldn't have stood in his

place in this House and wasted our time.

[2:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you; all the points of order are well

taken. Knowing the member for Nelson-Creston, I am sure he can relate

his remarks to the principle or principles of this bill during second

reading.

MR. NICOLSON: I had actually considered asking Mr. Speaker to

examine the bill to see if it might not be best divided into parts. I

have several good citations I could bring to Mr. Speaker's attention on

several of these bills, if one would seek to keep debating the

principle. Certainly, when there are several principles contained in a

single bill....

Far be it from me to nitpick, but if one were to get technical

[ Page

883 ]

about these things I am sure Mr. Speaker would agree, after some consultation

with his learned advisers, that some of these bills should be divided into parts.

There is some merit in what the honourable Minister of Forests has to say. One

thing about the Minister of Forests is that he is very often in his seat in

this House listening to the debate. While I might take some offence at other

members getting up and taking issue with whether or not I am on the principle

of a bill, I will allow that that minister, by virtue of his attendance in this

House, does have some credence. So I would not be too harsh with him for getting

up on what may have been a spurious point of order, because I think he has paid

his dues. If he is going to sit here and listen, then certainly he is entitled

to have his say.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I have to sit here, but nothing says I have to listen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And now to the bill, please.

MR. NICOLSON: I just didn't want any hard feelings between

myself and the Minister of Forests. On the other hand, the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) is not that expert in this House.

Down in the coffee shop people say: "One thing you have got to hand to

the Minister of Forests: he knows his rules a little bit; but the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam is still a bit damp behind the ears."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now we are clearly straying from the principle of the bill.

MR. NICOLSON: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; the Minister of Forests got me straying from the bill.

The other major principle in this bill apart from removal of the

method of promulgation by proclamation, is the whole business that....

To put it in very simple terms, regulations now can be made retroactive

when the minister considers it is in the public interest to do so. This

is another piece of legislative semantics which is going to become very

popular; it's in fashion in legislative drafting. It's really a

tip-off. When you see this caveat, "when it is in the public interest

to do so, in the opinion of the minister," look out. It may be that

during the election campaign the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

thought it was in the public interest to tell the people that there was

not going to be any increase in hospital user fees; so that's what he

told them, even though a couple of months after the election we see

increases in hospital user fees. That something is considered to be in

the public interest in the opinion of the minister does not necessarily

mean that it is in the public interest. Those words should be stricken

from this bill. This bill is saying that we can now make regulations

that will have full force and effect retroactive to some date. It could

go back to sometime before my birthdate. This is bad legislation.

The principle of this bill is that if you have a government that is so inept,

so humbling and so confused that they can't do anything right, they can

always clean up their act by passing retroactive legislation and saying it never

happened. It very much reminds me of the book Nineteen Eighty-Four .

It even reminds me of some things that are going on in the world today,

where people disappear or cease to exist. In certain countries, if you

ask about somebody.... Sometimes it happens in corporations. You say,

"Where's Bob?" and you get a blank look; poor Bob has gone down the

road; he's no longer in the corporation.

This piece of legislation will enable a government to be careless.

This power of retroactivity is going to encourage a government to be

sloppy. There is no incentive for good government in this legislation.

In this government there is only legislation for mediocrity and

incompetence. It brings to a new low the benchmarks of achievement. It

brings to a new low our expectations of our elected members, who, we

say, have been elevated to the cabinet. This legislation is apologetic.

This legislation is an admission of incompetence and failure and of a

lack of will.

There is an inspiring poem called " Ulysses ",

by Tennyson. I notice that the U.S. Olympic team has taken a line from

that poem as a theme for the next Olympics: "To seek, to strive, to

find, and not to yield." But there is no striving by this government.

There is no setting of uncompromised goals. Our goals in this

Legislature should be uncompromised. We shouldn't be allowing this kind

of legislation to come in. There hasn't been a crisis in this province

that we could not solve by calling together the Legislative Assembly.

There hasn't been a single crisis that we have failed in, even when we

wiped out a company because of poor preparation by the minister who

brought in the statute reorganization act. Even then, we saved the day;

we called together the Legislature. Planes had to be dispatched all

over the province; the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) had to be plucked from Skaha Lake,

almost in the middle of his water skiing.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: He was walking on the lake. I've heard the two

stories; I don't know which one to believe. But we managed that. I can

remember about three different occasions upon which we had to be

brought into this Legislature.

What I'm saying is that if a mistake is made, sometimes government

does have to be a little bit conciliatory and suffer a little bit of

shame coming into the House, calling a session together. But this

should never be done by regulation. If you have to take a retroactive

measure to clean up a goof.... Certainly the wiping out of an insurance

company did not defeat the government. It might have embarrassed it a

little bit. That was good; it put them on their mettle. This government

will not be put on their mettle, because now they will be able to clean

up goofs like that without any kind of reprimand, censure or ridicule

from the press, or without having to suffer any kind of price, paying

in any way for that. If we do not pass this piece of legislation, the

government will be kept on its mettle, and we will get better

government.

As a member of the opposition, it could well be my purpose to hope

that the government would fail. I happen to believe that the worse the

government governs, the better my personal chances for success. But I

put the people of British Columbia ahead of personal ambition. That is

not to deny that I am ambitious. But I put the people of British

Columbia ahead of personal ambition. This kind of legislation may lead

to the demise of this government, because the government shows every

day that it's grown more and more arrogant in victory.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're arrogant in defeat.

[ Page 884 ]

MR. NICOLSON: Am I arrogant in defeat? You read my throne speech, Mr. Minister, and see if that was arrogance.

This piece of legislation, very contrary to what the minister

says.... Yes, it is landmark legislation, but this legislation is

something we could well do without. The minister said that the

recommendations that led to the introduction of this bill came from the

Uniform Law Conference of Canada, but we have consulted some

authorities who say that this goes beyond the recommendations of the

Uniform Law Conference of Canada. So I don't accept that this is

something that is being done in many legislatures. As with every other

piece of legislation that has been brought forward this session, this

government is trying to go further than any other jurisdiction in

Canada.

One well wonders how we could have survived for over 100 years in

this province with the so-called antiquated methods that we have. All I

know is that before this government started supposedly streamlining and

changing legislative practices and rationalizing and using all the

other euphemisms, we had a couple of billion dollars in the bank, and

now we're going to be about $1.5 billion in debt this year. That's what

I know about the way in which all of these types of legislation have

led us.

[3:00]

I watched the government reorganization act, which enabled the

government to set up new ministries simply by regulation. I didn't

believe that that was good legislation, and I think the facts bear us

out on that. We have runaway expenditures in ministerial offices, and

now under this piece of legislation we're going to have further control

vested in the hands of the cabinet. It is the giving up of some of the

power of this Legislature. That's what legislation by and large is

about: we have powers. Our power is unlimited, save for the willingness

of the people to obey the laws of this land. No less an authority said

that — I'm paraphrasing — than Sir Erskine May, who said that in I

believe the last edition which he personally wrote: the ninth edition

of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice .

This Legislature should give up further powers to the executive council

very grudgingly. The Legislature comprises the executive council, the

official opposition and the back bench. By giving up further powers,

particularly blank-cheque powers to do things by regulation and

particularly blank-cheque powers to do things retroactively by

legislation, the bank-benchers are giving up almost any power that they

have. The back bench has a vote and no voice. Now they're taking away

even their vote. I've heard of many organizations where people are

granted voice but no vote, but this is one organization where they're

given vote and no voice, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the new members of this House should do some research into

the kinds of statutes that have been passed. They should go back to

what some of them consider the good old days — the 1960s, when W.A.C.

Bennett was in power — and look at the type of legislation passed then,

compared to the type of legislation passed from 1972 to 1975 and the

legislation passed since 1975.

The reason that this piece of legislation, Bill 31, is so important

is that since 1975 there has been an alarming trend toward setting the

broadest terms under which government can create regulations under

every statute that's brought into this House. It used to be that it was

confined to making regulations in keeping with specific sections in the

act, but it has been more and more the trend of modern legislative

drafting to allow the government to make carte blanche regulations

pursuant to the act. Now, with this bill, they can make regulations and

they can make them retroactively.

This is a very odious and serious piece of legislation, and I know

people who would disagree with the minister that this follows, to the

letter, the recommendations of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. I

think there are a few things in this bill that are innovations of the

present government. There are one or two things which might follow it,

but the Uniform Law Conference of Canada may not be in the best

interests in every respect, and certainly the fact is that it isn't

being followed 100 percent, in the opinion of some of the authorities

with whom I've consulted.

Then we have the other thing about this. Now we can pass

regulations, and they must be gazetted, but, on the other hand — and I

notice the green light is on, Mr. Speaker — where in the opinion of the

registrar it's not all that important — and who is to say what's

important? — or it's too lengthy, or the map is too cumbersome or

something, it may or may not be gazetted in whole or in part.

This piece of legislation is, I think, a very bad departure. To

understand it, people would really have had to have been around here

for a little while. It's going to affect all kinds of acts. The Creston

Valley Wildlife Act has been described to me by a person who helped

draft it as one of the most fascist pieces of legislation ever brought

into the House. It was brought in in 1968, I believe, and was passed

without debate back then.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I certainly tried, on many occasions,

and don't get me on that or we might be here for some time. I might want

to ask to be the designated speaker here, but I'm not going to get onto

that.

Because there are one or two things in this particular bill, and I

would hope to give some of the back-bench members time to review the

trend toward regulation in legislation since 1976, I move adjournment

of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 4.

MR. HOWARD: I want to raise with Your Honour a point of order

related to this specific move — calling a particular bill — but also to

a similar process and activity within the last day or so. It has

specific reference right now.

[3:15]

To lay the groundwork for the point of order, I want to draw Your

Honour's attention to some debates in this House on March 30, 1976, and

a decision resulting there from. The conversation at that particular

time — and I'm quoting the words of the then Premier, who is still the

Premier — related to the relationship of the Whips. It is set out on

page 396 of Hansard .

... the government Whip and all Whips have the obligation or

the responsibility of arranging time limits or arranging goals for debate, arbitrary

or not, so that this House can proceed in an orderly manner.

Then he makes reference to the then member for Dewdney, who was the government

Whip, and an assurance that the member for Dewdney had given to the Premier

at that time. Then he goes on

[ Page 885 ]

and talks about the Whip system having to work, needing to function.

The point I am making in this debate is that in this

House the Whip system is not a system to be policed. It is a system of

mutual trust. If the Whip system is to work, Mr. Speaker, then members

of our party must have confidence in our Whip and we must back him

up....

Of course, the same thing prevails here.

...we do have a reason to expect that the orderly presentation

of legislation can be achieved with the Whip system and it is regrettable what

has happened....

He goes on and on like that. More members entered into it; I don't

intend to relate further any of them. But the upshot of that was that

the government House Leader of the day felt that the process could be

worked out in a more orderly fashion if the House would take a recess.

Then Mr. Speaker said:

Order! Because of that, and the fact that I believe that something

could be worked out, I hereby declare a 15-minute recess. I'll be back in

the chair in 15 minutes.

The House then recessed and came back again as a result of that.

I'm asking Your Honour to attempt to follow that precedent that

happened there, declare a recess so that the Whips can consult, and we

can approach the progress and the dealing with business in this House

in an orderly fashion instead of this hop-skip-and-jump approach that

the minister is using now. I ask you to declare such a recess so that

the Whips can confer and find out what is in the government's mind in

terms of business that it wants to call.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker,

it's an absolutely spurious suggestion by the House Leader of the

official opposition. The only thing the opposition has been doing since

legislation has been introduced in this House is stall. They've not

come up with any constructive alternatives, and I indeed wish that the

Whips could reach some agreement on time limits and the order of

debate. I'll tell you who's preventing that happening: the official

opposition is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That's enough, thank you. The point of

order is well taken. I will ask the hon. member to take his place. I

will cite a ruling from yesterday by Mr. Speaker, who ruled that an

agreement between House Leaders or the Whips relating to the order of

business should not be brought up in the House, as the Chair could take

no cognizance of any such agreement or arrangement. Therefore I cannot

accept the point of order made by the hon. member for Skeena. We are on

Bill 4.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we had some hint of Bill 4; it was

the only hint we had of this government's legislative package before

the May 5 election. It was something that the Social Credit candidates

in this area and in Vancouver tried to distance themselves from to a

very great extent. The candidates we ran against said: "Vote for us and

we'll try to keep the low-income tax credit, and we'll try to keep the

renter's tax credit." They knew that to punish the people who could

least afford it was the most ridiculous, cruel and idiotic program that

any government could ever embark upon.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, taking the renter's tax credit away

from the people at the lowest income of the tax scale? What does it

mean? It means $150 to a tenant in my riding of Victoria, which I share

with the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). Tenants comprise 65

percent of this constituency. As all members of this House know, most

of those individuals — or a great number at any rate — are senior

citizens on fixed incomes. If there's one thing that terrifies senior

citizens, it's being taxed out of their own homes and out of their

rental accommodations.

At one time most senior citizens had their own single-family homes.

When their children grew up and moved away, and as that particular

residence became harder to finance....

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is getting a bit noisy in the chamber. If you have to have discussions, would you please keep them quiet?

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm trying to outline to the government that their nefarious program

is hurting in a very cruel way the people of my riding, particularly

the senior citizens on fixed incomes, the high number of unemployed and

the working poor — there are many thousands of working poor in this

city now because of the economic program of this government. I want to

explain to the government — through you, Mr. Speaker — that the senior

citizens occupying rental accommodation in James Bay, Fernwood and so

on at one time had homes, like many of the millionaires across the way.

As their families grew up, they sold their houses and took the equity

they had from their homes as their nest-eggs to live out the rest of

their lives in comfort, not expecting that a government here in the

city of Victoria would be so cruel as to embark upon programs that

would actually steal those nest-eggs they had.

I would like to outline a few of the ways in which that is

occurring. Stripping away rental control is making tenants, and

particularly seniors, vulnerable....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, rent

control is not a topic in the bill which is under debate. It bears no

relationship whatsoever to the amendment act which is before us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill does not specifically refer to rent

controls. So perhaps the hon. member could direct his remarks

specifically to the bill.

MR. HANSON: The point is — and the minister knows it full

well — that on July 7 he introduced a budget and 26 bills, which are

inextricably co-implicated with that budget. They strip away rent

protection from tenants, and they strip away the renter's tax credit.

He knows full well that when they strip away the renter's tax credit

and take away rent protection, they are doing a double whammy to the

seniors and the people on fixed incomes in their constituency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. HANSON: I don't think millionaires can really understand

what I'm talking about, and I understand why they want to keep

chirping: "Order, order, order." As millionaires they don't understand;

they haven't got a clue.

[ Page 886 ]

MR. MOWAT: I wish I was a millionaire; then I wouldn't have to listen to you.

MR. HANSON: There are many millionaires on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Yes, they're largely coupon-clippers; they're not workers.

MR. MOWAT: Come on! Get out of the gutter.

MR. HANSON: They're really nervous when you point out how they get their income, when other people work very hard for it.

MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member

opposite just described members on this side of the House as

coupon-clippers and non-workers. I'll have him know that people on this

side of the House have probably worked more individually than the whole

caucus has in their entire lives. I take offence at that kind of

statement, and I would ask the member to withdraw it, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would suggest that the comment could be taken as unparliamentary. I ask the member if he would withdraw.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Since the Chair has already made the ruling, perhaps the member would withdraw before we take a point of order.

MR. HANSON: I'll withdraw, because I think the key point is

that they lack any sensitivity or understanding of working people,

ordinary people, and the real needs of the people of my constituency —

tenants, low-income people. To embark upon a legislative and budgetary

program that takes the milk out of the tea of the senior citizens in my

riding is absolutely disgusting. One hundred and fifty dollars is

nothing to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot). He's a cabinet

minister, he makes $75,000 a year, he has a massive expense account; he

has a car; he flies everywhere, as does the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). They don't understand

taking away $150 from a senior citizen who makes $500 a month.

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I take exception

to the reference to the Provincial Secretary not having concern for

$150; I know he has a major concern for $150.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when a member

rises under standing orders on a point of order, he should have a point

of order; otherwise he is out of order. I would ask Mr. Speaker not to

allow any further interruptions of the speaker on this bill by

spurious, false or fraudulent points of order; otherwise the debate in

this House becomes a circus.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) leapt to his feet before the Chair had the opportunity to tell

the previous speaker that he did not have a point of order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I want to outline to that

well-heeled government over there exactly how many dollars a senior

citizen in my riding who is on a fixed income has to live on. A single

person on old-age pension gets $256.67 a month; if they're getting the

GIS, add $257.68, plus $38.88 from GAIN, for a grand total of $553.23.

For a couple, the OAP and the GIS come to $455.34 — plus GAIN, $49.83,

for a total of $505.17 each. The philosophy of the renter's tax credit

was to provide some equity to a tenant. As you know, Mr. Speaker, a

person who owns a home gets a homeowner grant to offset their taxes.

The homeowner grant is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $550. To offer

the tenant some parity, a tax credit of $150 per year was given to help

offset personal income tax. In addition, if a person was making a very

low income, they were given a low-income tax credit to offer some

modicum of cushion against the income tax and to offer parity with

people with other kinds of tax credits, such as the people across the

floor who can write off interest on loans for stock and what have you.

[3:30]

Let me indicate to you what the low-income tax credit and the

renter's tax credit mean to these various categories of individuals,

whether they be seniors or are on unemployment insurance or are

low-income earners. For example, let's just take an old-age pensioner

couple. The personal tax credit bill will strip $266.70 away from them;

add to that the $150 renter's credit, and that's $416.70. I can assure

you, Mr. Speaker, many thousands of people in my own constituency — and

I'm sure you have tenants in your constituency — in James Bay would

dearly love to have cash — $416.70 — not for luxuries, not to ride on

the Marguerite to go to Seattle or to buy some luxury item, but to put

groceries on the table. I watch senior citizens in my own constituency

shopping on Cook Street and in the Fairfield market, and so on — I'm

sure you're aware of these particular shopping areas. I've watched

seniors going through the meat and poultry counter and picking up

saran-wrapped packages of backs and necks of chicken, and finding them

too expensive to afford. I think the members over there probably find

that rather difficult to understand. I do not find that difficult to

understand at all. That's why I'm on my feet in this debate opposing

this bill.

MR. KEMPF: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. member for Omineca.

MR. KEMPF: I don't find it difficult to understand that which

the member is suggesting some senior citizens have to do in order to

buy meat at their meat counter. I do find it very difficult to

understand how that relates to Bill 4, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like you to

call the member to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue, hon. member.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the members opposite would stand in their places and oppose this bill and....

[ Page 887 ]

MR. KEMPF: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, again I seek your

ruling on this kind of irrelevant debate on Bill 4. Certainly there is

merit in what the member says, but not on Bill 4. I'd ask for your

ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 4, hon. member, as I read it, refers to

the changes that will be brought about in the Income Tax Amendment Act,

which, I would suggest to you, hon. member, does make the points that

are being made by the hon. first member of Victoria pertinent. I would

have to sustain him and overrule you.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I

congratulate you on your ruling, but let me point out to the member for

Omineca that he has a point of order, but not one he states....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member for Coquitlam Moody, you weren't

recognized by the Chair. Your microphone wasn't on. So I would

recognize the hon. member from Coquitlam-Moody. Do you want to speak

now?

MR. ROSE: The member for Omineca is indulging in not a point

of order but a point of debate. He has a perfect right to do that. I

wish he'd stand in his place and take

part in the debate of Bill 4,

instead of getting up on some phony point of order trying to harass my

colleague over here who was making a very valid point on this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I think that was taken care of in my remarks. Please carry on.

MR. HANSON: As you so astutely pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the

bill before us repeals sections in the Income Tax Act that afford some

protection to the low-income earners in our society and also to the

renters. I'm trying to explain to this House — and I know that it can't

get through the thick craniums opposite — what that impact is to people

who cannot afford to buy protein to put on their table to sustain their

own health. As I indicated what the figures are — to take away from a

couple of seniors living in my constituency and elsewhere in the

province.... I only say "my" because of the high preponderance of

renters here, but in Vancouver Centre, for example, roughly two-thirds

of all of the residents are tenants, and there is a high incidence of

seniors. To go to these people and strip them of $416.70 is really

beyond flesh-and-blood's endurance, because those people do not have

that kind of money to support that kind of tax increase. That's really

what it is. It's a tax increase.

Let's take the example of a single parent — a single mother with two

children. That person would be entitled to a personal tax credit of

$147. One hundred and forty-seven dollars in that mother's purse, plus

the $150 renter's tax credit, is $297. I'll bet you that that single

mother would like to go to Zeller's — and I say Zeller's because that

is a store that has low-priced back-to-school goods. I see it

advertised on television. For $297 that person could buy a lot of

necessary clothing and back-to-school things for her children so she

could send her children back to school with some pride.

Take away $300 from that person, and that hurts very deeply. It's

something we campaigned on in the last campaign. We said very clearly

to people: "You vote for us, and we will not take away this credit from

the lowest income people and the people least able to afford it." As I

said before, the Social Credit candidates who ran in Victoria were so

ashamed of that program that they ran against it. They said: "Vote for

us, and we'll fight our government."

MR. REID: That's why they didn't get elected.

MR. HANSON: Oh, boy, Mr. Speaker. We've got people in this House who would shock any semblance of good taste and decency.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In his

departure from the main thrust of his remarks, it seems the first

member for Victoria was casting aspersions on other members of this

chamber. I believe that here we are all honourable members, are we not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would support the hon. Minister of Finance and ask the hon. first member for Victoria if he would withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, you're asking the first member for

Victoria to withdraw something simply because the Minister of Finance

stood up and was upset, over what I don't know. What is this desire to

withdraw? To withdraw what?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order, hon. members, is that the

hon. Minister of Finance suggested that the hon. member who was

speaking had cast aspersions on hon. members of this House, who are

honourable members. I supported that and asked the member if he would

withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, with respect, you yourself just now

said that the Minister of Finance suggested something. Perhaps it's the

Minister of Finance who should be asked to withdraw, if he's making

suggestions about hon. members in this House. I listened carefully to

what the first member for Victoria was saying, and he cast no

aspersions on any hon. member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is the opinion of the Chair that aspersions were cast, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw.

MR. HANSON: It escapes me to what.... I'll withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

I'm trying to convey to the government the fact that they are either

unaware or deliberately cruel. They are unaware of the pain to the

poor, and I think that's clearly documented. I think every editorial in

the province — even in my own constituency of the Times-Colonist

— indicated, when this particular proposal was put forward, that the

poor were going to be stripped of the low-income tax credit and the

renters' tax credit. The editorial staff of the Times-Colonist

was aghast as to why, during the depths of a recession, a government

with the authority to cushion its citizenry would embark upon a plan to

impale the poor on bills which would strip them of buying power, of

their ability to pay rent, to put decent food on their tables, to

clothe their children.

Subsequently we've seen a much broader program, whereby they've

taken away $50 a month from the poorest people on social assistance,

the mentally retarded. These people are working additionally for

incentive money, $50

[ Page 888 ]

extra a month, which provides some sense of accomplishment and dignity. They work in all sorts of volunteer areas.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are

discussing, in principle, Bill 4, and subject to your ruling I have

difficulty seeing that Bill 4 deals with the topics which the member

has covered in the last few moments.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with the

greatest respect, I would submit that many points of order have been

brought to the attention of the Chair, and I think it rather

presumptuous of members to assume that Mr. Speaker is not listening to

the debate and needs so much intrusive interference.

MR. MOWAT: You just got in the door! You haven't even heard the debate.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I did hear one member get up,

supposedly on a point of order, and embark upon an attack on other

members of the House. I believe it was the Minister of Forests (Hon.

Mr. Waterland) who said we had never worked, cumulatively, as many days

as the people on the other side. I would submit that Mr. Speaker should

warn members of the House that the Chair is listening to the debate and

is doing its job.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Even though the Chair

is relatively new at the job, I don't think it needs to be instructed

or needs any help, thank you all the same.

If I may just, for a moment, hon. member.... To the point of order that was originally raised....

MR. HOWARD: That is what I am rising on, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, all right then. Carry on.

MR. HOWARD: I am rising with respect to the point of order

raised by the Minister of Finance, who has such an eggshell sensitivity

that he can't see clearly what is happening here. The principle of the

bill, and the Minister of Finance is the one who introduced it.... In

its explanatory notes on

section 1, that is the first point of it all.

"Repeals provisions for personal income tax credit and renter tax

credit." That is the principle, to repeal those provisions. I submit to

you that the member for Victoria is simply canvassing the effect that

that would have upon the people of this province — the repeal of those

provisions. He is speaking, I want to submit, exactly and precisely to

the principle of the bill. The Minister of Finance should just contain

himself a bit and not get so desperate in his raising of points of

order and let the debate proceed in an orderly fashion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you hon. member. In a bill of this

type, I would suggest that by its very nature it would call up a

certain amount of latitude in what is being stated. Inasmuch as it does

deal with incomes and moneys and taxes, there is some relevancy, but I

would please ask the hon. member if he wouldn't stray too far from the

bill and if he try and direct his speech more to the bill itself.

[3:45]

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have in front of me a

Rent Review Commission report which gives the average price for rental

accommodation here in Victoria. The average rent for a one-bedroom

apartment is $366 a month. As I pointed out to you earlier, a couple

with a one-bedroom apartment have $505 each. To take away $416 would be

roughly equivalent to taking away all of their disposable income for

one month. That is what it amounts to. Last year they had 12 months of

disposable income separate from the rent; this year they have 11

months. Have costs gone down, has food gone down, has clothing gone

down? Well, there are some sales and so on. What I am trying to point

out to the government is that when you take away $400 from a person on

a fixed or low income, it really hurts. It means the difference between

having quality food on the table for yourself or your spouse or your

family, and not having it; $416 is a lot of food to senior citizens in

James Bay.

I can assure you — and I know you know that, Mr. Speaker.... Let's

take, for example, a head of household on UIC with two children. The

loss of the personal tax credit is $240 plus the renter's tax credit of

$150 — $390. Now no one gets rich on UIC; in fact, you usually end up

going to the bank and running a line of credit in the hope that you are

going to get work. There is nobody that knows better than some of the

members on this side of the House, particularly the member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly), where a huge number of people in his riding are on UIC

and welfare.... In my own constituency I am sorry to say that number is

increasing constantly as well.

When you take away $390 in an annual lump sum from someone on UIC

with kids, that really hurts badly. If you think that offends the

government, to know what the impact of their legislation is.... Their

legislation, to them probably, is just a nice piece of white paper that

comes from the Queen's Printer, that says things on it that makes them

feel important. This sort of thing hurts people; it means the

difference between chicken legs and chicken necks to people. It means

the difference between a new pair of running shoes and having a

child.... Kids are funny. The more you are around kids, the more you

know that they feel badly if they are not dressed the same way as other

children or if they don't have jeans and things that make them feel

that they are as good as other kids. I know from Blanshard Court, at

Blanshard and Hillside, which is public housing, that that will

directly impact the people in that housing.

Everybody in there is going to be affected by this bill. Those kids

would love to have a new pair of sneakers to wear to school, and a

clean, pressed, brand-new pair of jeans. And they're not going to have

them. I know they're not going to have them after this bill.

Various organizations have criticized the government, but they don't

heed opposition. We've seen it on the other bills. We've had 25,000 to

30,000 people on the lawn in front of this building and no one listens.

We've had 50,000 people in Vancouver. It's high. There are lots of

people out there who think you people are really going in the wrong

direction. That's why we're on our feet on this side of the House, and

that's why we're fighting these bills. If the members on the government

side get offended in their thin skin — if I offend their delicate

sensibilities by telling them that they're going to affect the

nutrition, diet, health and well-being of people by this legislation —

they're going to jump onto their feet and

[ Page 889 ]

try and bring me back to order. I'll tell you,

we're not going to stop telling you about this, because it really is

hurting people.

One thing we're not short of, Mr. Speaker, is statistics. Here's a

bulletin — it's called the SPARC Bulletin. It's very interesting,

because it gives the basic family budgets for low-income families. They

estimate what a person needs just to survive. For example — and they're

taking this example in Vancouver, but I think we could extrapolate that

to Victoria very easily — let's take an unemployed single person's

monthly costs: food, $164; clothing, $40; personal care, $10 — and I'm

sure this is right to the bone; there are no extras in this little stat

— transportation, $21; subtotal, $235; average cost of utilities and

telephone, $39; average rent for a bachelor suite — you can imagine

what kind of bachelor suite it is — $285. So that total is somewhere

between $559 and $642. Okay, that's how much it costs to keep body and

soul together for a single person, giving rent, food, clothing,

personal care, transportation, utilities that the person has to pay or

else the lights go out, the stove goes off, you sit in the dark on an

apple crate or something. This is what the income is. If that person

was working at B.C. Forest Products, his UIC ran out, he's now onto

social assistance, and what does he get? He gets $375. Well, he needs

$559 to survive and he's got $375. How does he do it? If he is

absolutely unemployable — in other words, has a physical disability or

some other problem — then he gets $430. So where does that put him?

That puts him $120 short of his basic requirements.

Let's go on to another case. Example number two: three persons, a

one-parent family consisting of a mother, a son aged eight and a

daughter aged five living in Richmond. Is the member for Richmond (Hon.

Mr. Nielsen) here? No, he's not in his place. Well, perhaps he'll read

the Blues later on. He may be interested in this. So we have a

three-person family where the main grocery-earner is a mother. Food,

$294; clothing, $70; personal care, $24; transportation, $39; for a

subtotal of $427. You add to that the cost of utilities and telephone —

now maybe they can get rid of the telephone — $39. But it's hard to

find work if you don't have a telephone sometimes. If you can't get out

and are looking after children, how would you contact people? The

average rent for a two-bedroom suite is $331, under controls, or

uncontrolled it's $528. So the basic monthly income required is $797 a

month to support three people. What is the MHR rate? It's $805. So they

have $8 more than they need to survive. Just to keep your heart going

and your eyes focused, they've got an extra $8. I don't know what they

do on that $8. That would get maybe a medium pizza as a special treat

on a Friday night once a month. That would be the night out: sitting

around — presumably they have a television or something like that.

The members on the government side don't like to hear the hard

numbers. They don't want to be reminded that their bill actually does

translate itself from the abstract to flesh and blood, to the actual

needs and basic requirements of the poor and the 200,000 people who are

out of work, and the 200,000 people who are on social assistance in

this province — directly affected by this bill.

Let's take a third example, a two-parent family. They are both

unemployed. Mr. Speaker, that certainly is not an unusual case in

British Columbia. We've got a two-parent family with two teen-age

children; in other words, we've got four people within four walls who

are feeling pretty frustrated, pretty desperate — maybe a sense of low

esteem. Perhaps this has been going on for some time. You can use your

imagination — it doesn't take much imagination.

They've got a boy aged 16 and a girl aged 14. They're living in New

Westminster. The food they need for basic body-and-soul requirements

would come to $449 for the month — that's a little over $100 a week.

Clothing, $146; personal care, $48; transportation, $62; for a subtotal

of $705. The average cost of their utilities and telephone is $39 and

the average rent for a two-bedroom suite.... Bearing in mind, of

course, that their rent is no longer controlled and that they could at

any time get a rental increase of $100 a month, and not one finger

could be lifted to fix that, when you take the subtotal of their food,

clothing, personal care and transportation — basic needs of $705 — and

you add their rent to that, you come to a total amount of $1,000 a

month for that family of four to survive. The MHR rate — if they are

regarded as employable — is $870, so they are just about $300 short.

How many beer bottles, coke cans and things can a person pick up to

make up that extra $300? How many bus fares can you save to make up

$300 a month? What you're doing is cutting the nutrition of your

family. Instead of having protein, you're having starch. Instead of the

kids dressing properly, they are dressing poorly, and knowing it and

feeling it. Nobody objects to getting secondhand and hand-me-down

clothes once in a while; but when it's the only clothing you ever have,

it affects your psyche indelibly. You start feeling there's something

wrong, that you're somehow not as good as other people — and that's

wrong.

In British Columbia we live in one of the wealthiest parts of this

planet. We have the greatest softwood production in the whole world.

We're the largest low-grade copper exporter in all of the world. We

have minerals of the broadest range. We don't have a great agricultural

potential, and whatever we have we're losing fast under this

government. We do have great ability to produce protein from the sea,

but we're losing that opportunity, too.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to say to the government that this bill is testament to the

lack of care and concern they have for the renters and the poor of this

province. Nothing exemplifies that more.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I just want to make sure that we

understand the motion. The member said that he wished to adjourn the

debate. I'm not sure if that's what he wishes. I think he wants to

adjourn the debate until the next sitting, does he not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's the motion the Chair understood.

[4:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 6.

[ Page 890 ]

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. GABELMANN: I remember several years ago — and several

ministers and several pieces of legislation ago — a promise by the

government that no amendments would be made to school legislation

without first a thorough review of the Public School Act, since renamed

the School Act. That was at a time when I was making some requests that

school boards in parts of my riding be elected by ballot, rather than

appointed at tea parties. I was told by the then Minister of Education

that it was not possible to introduce that element of democracy into

the school system, not because the government disagreed with it but

because the School Act was not open for amendment. Since that time we

have had a series of bills which have in fact amended the School Act in

very damaging ways.

I think it's important to review briefly the history of this

legislation. Bill 6, which we are debating at this point, is simply one

more step, and I fear not the last step, in a series of pieces of

legislation that will totally and completely revamp not the education

of children in this province, but the structure of the system of

administering the school system itself. That process was started by

legislation which for the most part took away from school boards their

power of taxation, when they lost the right to gain revenue from

commercial and industrial property. In some school districts in my

riding, it meant that as much as 88 percent of their local tax base was

lost. That was one step towards this bill, which is a continuation of

the centralization of education in this province.

The next step in that process was the introduction later that year

of Bill 89, which was basically a bill designed to reduce the school

year and to provide fewer teaching days in order to save some money.

Interestingly, in that piece of legislation there was, as I remember, a

section that made certain that special needs programs could not be

affected without ministerial approval.

We have now gone the next step in terms of centralized control over what can or cannot be offered by local school districts.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Quite frankly, I don't know why any citizen in this province would

want to run for school trustee this fall. What will be their power?

They will no longer have the power to determine what the educational

needs are in their particular district. Let me say clearly that

educational needs are very different from school district to school

district. The special education needs in at least one school district

in my riding, possibly two, are overwhelming. I don't have the

confidence that the bureaucrats in Victoria, who are hard-working, good

people, know what the particular situations are in Mahatta River, Port

Eliza or Alert Bay. Most of the bureaucrats, and the minister himself,

haven't been to those schools, to those communities, and don't know

what the particular needs are.

One of the most exciting classrooms in my constituency has six kids

in it and two teachers; at least it did, until some of the cutbacks

last year. One of those teachers was a professional educator, and the

other a professional social worker. Those six kids used not to be in

the public education system. Those six kids or their counterparts....

MR. REE: Children.

MR. GABELMANN: "Children," if you will. I call them kids; you

can call them children; that's neither here nor there. The minister and

I agree on that. "Kids" is the vernacular; it's what the kids call

themselves.

As a result of the changes that have occurred and are continuing to

occur, those six children — not they themselves directly, but those

whom they symbolize — who for at least the last few years have had an

opportunity to be involved in the school system, will no longer have

that right. Those children will be put back into the community, and for

the most part they will not receive an education. If they are at school

they will, in many cases, disrupt classrooms and make it difficult for

teachers to pursue the education of the rest of that classroom, which

will have many more kids in it than it now does.

In that regard I just want to deal for a moment with the absurd

notion that what the government is doing is to change the class size

from 17 to 19. I go to a lot of classrooms, and there are not very many

classes of 19. That's the message — not that the Minister of Education

has been promoting it, because he knows better, but the Premier has

been saying it. All we want to do, says the Premier, is make sure that

we don't have 17 instead of 19 kids in class. An absurd notion. Too

many classrooms already have 35 and 40 kids in them, and too many

classrooms are being eliminated that should have six kids or even fewer

in cases where those special needs programs are so essential.

I want to make it clear that no amount of research, homework or

special ability on the part of bureaucrats in Victoria will ever allow

them to make the kinds of local decisions that can be made by locally

elected school trustees. To say, as this bill does, that all of the

decisions in each of those little pigeon-holes of expenditures are

going to be made here in Victoria and not by the school.... The

minister shakes his head.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's not true. You know that.

MR. GABELMANN: If it's not true why do you need the legislation?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, let me just get the bill out and see if

I've made a mistake. "The minister may issue directives" — a directive

is an order — "at any time before May 1 in a year establishing the

amount of or a portion of the budget, including the portion for special

education programs, of a school district for that calendar year...."

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's right, and if a school district takes away all special needs, the minister has a right to put it back....

[4:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GABELMANN: Let me read it again; the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) didn't hear me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. member for North Island please address the Chair.

[ Page

891 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have been doing that by speaking in the third person.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, in the first person, if you would kindly address the Chair.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have been addressing the Chair.

I have not been speaking to that member as "you"; I'm speaking to him

as "he." Therefore it is automatic that I'm addressing the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair doesn't need a lecture from the hon. member. Would you kindly address the Chair.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, the member doesn't need a lecture from the Chair either.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'll ask the hon. member to withdraw that, please.

MR. GABELMANN: To withdraw what, sir?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member is completely aware that he ought not to chastise the Chair, and I would ask you to withdraw that.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the place where you sit, I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it must be an unconditional withdrawal.

MR. GABELMANN: In that respect it's unconditional. It's unconditional, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Continue.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying in the third

person, the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain has not read

the bill. Let me read again what I was just saying, and I will read the

bill that he has not yet seen or read: "The minister may issue

directives at any time before May 1 in a year, establishing the amount,

or a portion of the budget, including the portion for special education

Speaker, that means that the minister can determine what the budget

will be for each of the pigeon-hole items that he has established,

including special education. It may be that the amounts will vary

district to district, and I would expect that they would. But my point

is that neither he nor his staff here in Victoria have the ability, or

the knowledge, to make those kinds of decisions.

What's wrong with trusting democracy? What's wrong with allowing people

to elect their own local people to run their own institutions? Why doesn't

this government trust the people? Why do they feel they have to have all of

the power here in Victoria? Why do they think that their staff have more knowledge

and more moral authority than locally elected people to make these decisions?

That principle has nothing to do with restraint. If the minister only has so

many dollars to spend on education, he can say so, and he can tell the boards

that that's the end of the dollars in that particular year. We might quarrel

that there is not enough, but we wouldn't quarrel that the minister has

the right to set an arbitrary ceiling to expenditures in this province on education.

Nor would we quarrel — we might quarrel in detail but we wouldn't quarrel

in principle — that he has the right to determine what those amounts are, school

district by school district. But why does he need the power to tell school districts

how to spend that money within their own district? What has that got to do with

restraint? Like every other bit of legislation we've been presented with

this session, it has nothing to do with restraint, nothing to do with fiscal

policy; it has everything to do with the government's determination to demonstrate

that they are in fact so right-wing, so different, that they want to make Ronald

Reagan look like a pinko. And do you know, Mr. Speaker, they've succeeded.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. GABELMANN: The member's right. They want to make Ronald Reagan look like a Red.

I used to have a lot of arguments with one of the former Ministers

of Education, Bill Vander Zalm. He was going around this province

proposing a county system, which would include, as he described it, not

just local government at the municipal level but also other forms of

local government, including education. I opposed that concept of

electing one board of governors, in effect, in each of the counties

that would be established, who would then have responsibility for a

whole variety of different kinds of things, including education.

But, you know, Bill Vander Zalm looks like a moderate these days,

when we're presented with this kind of legislation. At least that guy,

as right-wing as he might have been, had the courage to go around this

province and express to the public what his ideas were before he came

back to the House with legislation. Why is it that the present minister

hasn't got the courage to do that? Why is it that it takes a guy....?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister did not go around this province

before July 7 telling voters that when they elected him and his party

one of the results of doing that would be the elimination of the power

of school districts to budget within the budget given to them by the

province. He did not campaign on that issue. All I'm saying is that at

least one of the former Ministers of Education — in fact another one,

too, on other issues — went around this province and talked about some

of his ideas. They were concerned about how the public would react and

what the public wanted. Why is it that on this piece of legislation and

so many others we're presented with, the minister and his colleagues

have not had the courage that that former member had? Why no

consultation with the trustees? Why no consultation with the teachers?

Why no consultation with the parents? Why no consultation with the

voters? Isn't democracy in this society based somewhat, at least, on

some consultation? Or is democracy fast becoming something which means

that if you can bamboozle and lie to the public and get elected, you

can do whatever the hell you please? That's what you're doing here.

[ Page 892 ]

The minister is a little agitated by what I'm saying. All I can go

on, Mr. Speaker, is what the bill says. The bill says that the minister

may order school boards to spend certain amounts of money per

compartmentalized item. That's including special education, which is of

some particular concern to me, because it's the special education

programs that have had a great deal to do with keeping kids in the

school system. As a result of the cutbacks so far, I know of three kids

in my riding who were in school and who are now not in school because

the schools can't cope with them. In one case the mother had to quit

her job and go on welfare in order to stay home with her child. What

kind of inanity, what kind of insane public policy-making, is that,

that you would deliberately put people on welfare?

One of the major increases in the budget this year is welfare

payments. I found that curious when I first saw the budget. I thought

we were, hopefully, into a time of recovery. But I think somebody in

the budget-making process understood that the impact of this

legislation, and all the other legislation, would be, in fact, to drive

people onto welfare, and that we would therefore need a much increased

welfare budget.

It's hard to find calm words; it's hard to be calm, faced with a

government that deliberately puts people out of work, that deliberately

drives people out of the school system, that deliberately denies

democracy, that willingly and happily increases the welfare rolls, and

jokes about joblessness — as the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

does. Is it any wonder that all of us are speaking on all of these

bills? Is it any wonder that the public in this province are concerned

as they have never been concerned before? I remember a major

demonstration on the steps of this Legislature, when 1,500 people came

here to tell us that we should amend our land bill. And we did. But

this government can't even respond on these issues when 20,000 or

25,000 people demonstrate their concern. They're not interested in what

the people have to say. They're not interested in the consequences of

their actions, other than to take a place in history as having actually

introduced legislation which will demonstrate that they've been the

most right-wing government the western democracies have seen since the

1930s.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not talking about education; you're all around the block.

MR. GABELMANN: I am talking about the bill.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The second member for Surrey suggests that....

I mean the first member for Surrey. Mr. Speaker, I wasn't referring to

how many votes they got. I was referring to how loud they are. In that

respect I thought she was the second member. I give her my apologies.

She's the first member.

She suggests that I'm worried that the public will see that the government

was right in this bill and its accompanying legislation. I can assure that member

that there isn't the slightest worry of that in my mind. If there were,

I might want to reconsider whether I were willing to speak at the length that

I intend to speak on all the bills that are being presented to us. There is

no question whatsoever in my mind, in the minds of my colleagues, or in the

minds of the overwhelming majority of the public that this is wrong-headed,

wrong-minded, incorrect, negative policy. The denial of local democracy is a

fundamental shift in the direction — as with so many of these other bills —

of public policy-making in this society.

AN HON. MEMBER: Think of the taxpayers who are paying the freight.

MR. GABELMANN: I want those taxpayers who are paying the

freight to be allowed to make decisions too. I want those taxpayers who

are paying the freight to be allowed to have some local control. I want

those taxpayers, who include not just residential taxpayers but

industrial and commercial taxpayers, to have some local control over

where their taxes go. They don't have that control now.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'd ask the hon. second member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) kindly to come to order. The hon.

member for North Island continues.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, the second member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain wants me to speak about the things that

aren't in the bill. I'm not allowed to do that; you wouldn't let me do

that. I have to talk about what is in the bill. What is in the bill is

a denial of the right of the local taxpayers to determine how they want

their taxes spent in the educational system. That's the principle of

the bill. There is no other principle, despite the fact that the

explanatory notes are misleading. It says it gives the minister powers

to supervise budgets and expenditures by school district. If you read

the legislation, it says it gives the minister the power to issue

directives. There's a big difference between supervision and direction.

In this province directives have always — in legislation — meant

orders. If the school districts don't obey orders, what happens then?

If the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain is trying to suggest to me that the local boards still have that power....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GABELMANN: Unlike Bill 89 of last year....

Mr. Speaker, there are several issues going on. One of the problems

when the Chair doesn't control the House is that you get this kind of

crossfire. I want to say to that member that if school trustees are not

allowed to determine how taxpayer dollars are spent in their school

districts, they may as well fold up their tents and go home, because

the only other power they have left, if they chose, would be to fire

those people they didn't like in the school system.

MR. MOWAT: I'll bet you'll see every seat for election of school boards fully....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain will kindly come to order.

MR. GABELMANN: If I were not an MLA, and I were in the

community, I might be tempted too to run for school trustee this year

simply to add my voice to those hundreds of

[ Page

893 ]

other trustees around this province who are

condemning this legislation. I would like that opportunity, and for

that reason alone would consider running for school trustee if I were

in a position to do so.

What does the minister intend to do about his program, his policies

announced to "rationalize," — and, to use my word, to eliminate — the

school districts in this province? Is that part of the agenda in this

bill? I think it is. I think before the minister goes in that direction

he should take a very careful look at why we have some school districts

with a small number of student enrolments.

[4:30]

There's one school district in my constituency which occupies, I

would say, close to a quarter of the size of this island. There have

been proposals that it should perhaps be amalgamated with a

neighbouring school district, Island West. There have been proposals

gossiped around in the ministry about that particular district not

being needed because there are only 200 or 300 children in the school

system. The trustees in that particular district represent communities

that are literally three or four hours apart, and in some seasons of

our year are not even in contact with each other.

Mr. Speaker, is that part of the intention of the minister? If there

is intention — and there may well be good cause for some

rationalization — are we going to have that as a fait accompli, or are

we going to have it after hearings? What role will the trustees play in

that process? How much consultation will there be in order to determine

whether or not decisions made here in Victoria are appropriate?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I raise that because it's a very real concern to a lot of us. I'm

going to leave it for the moment and trust.... The minister has the

message on that particular issue. I want to discuss some of the early

reactions of the School Trustees' Association. I can assure you that

from my perspective, having talked to trustees in the three school

districts in North Island, this is a moderate and very tempered

reaction based on their true feelings about this legislation.

On July 21, 1983, the B.C. School Trustees' Association presented a brief to the government.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The member for Vancouver–Little Mountain

wouldn't know, but there is a history over the last number of years and

decades of school districts withdrawing, rejoining, in and out of the

B.C. School Trustees' Association — as the Speaker well knows.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Are you suggesting they don't know what they're doing?

MR. GABELMANN: At some points in our history some school

boards didn't want to belong to the BCSTA. That's a legitimate decision

in a free society. I suppose you'd take that right away from them too,

if you could. You've already taken away from the school teachers their

right to bargain. What more fundamental right is there in our society?

MR. REE: Returning the rights to the taxpayer.

MR. GABELMANN: I hear from the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano that the reason school teachers have had their

denial of that fundamental human and civil right to bargain

collectively taken away is somehow to protect the taxpayer. How far is

that government prepared to go in its denial of basic human and civil

rights in order to "protect the taxpayer?" We've seen a demonstration

so far of how far they'll go. They'll take away the right of collective

bargaining for whole groups in our society. They'll take away the human

rights of dispossessed people in our society — and I know that's not

quite in order, Mr. Speaker. They would take away any right if they

thought their huge salaries could somehow be protected, so they can

invest it in the places they want to invest, without any concern

whatsoever for the ordinary person, who makes, on average, 10 percent

of what most of the Socred caucus makes.

MR. REE: You get the same huge salary I do.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't have your law salary, Mr. Member.

MR. REE: I'm not practising law. I get the same salary you do as an MLA.

MR. GABELMANN: It's no wonder you're not practising law.

Mr. Speaker, if they're prepared to withdraw the rights of locally

elected people to govern municipal matters in non-organized areas, and

if they're prepared — as they are here — to deny school trustees the

right to govern their affairs, is this Legislature next? Is this the

next institution to have its powers denied? I suggest that that process

has already started, unbeknownst to the public. When we see bill after

bill that takes from this Legislature, and gives to individual cabinet

ministers, the right to make decisions, the fundamental rights of

parliament are also being denied and taken away in this society. Some

people will say that's an extravagant and farfetched statement. I'm one

of the more moderate people on that particular line, Mr. Speaker; I

tend not to use extravagant language. I haven't yet called them

fascists, although I sure am tempted when I see legislation like this.

Mr. Speaker, the trustees in their presentation suggested that this

"funding formula" as proposed by the government would have a number of

effects that would in fact go counter to the government's intention to

attempt to save money. For the most part, I think, the trustees are

right. They suggest, first of all, that there will be increased legal

costs. There's absolutely no question about that. Anybody who knows

anything about how the school system works at the local level will

realize that the legislation will have that effect for sure. Of course,

if you have increased resort to the courts, you are going to have

increased costs that come from some of the court decisions that flow

from this kind of legislation.

Ironically, in spite of the bleatings from the member from Little

Mountain, you are going to have an increase in the number of

administrators in some school districts — falsely named because for the

most part administrators are not involved in administration per se,

certainly not the way the Education ministry counts who is and who

isn't an administrator and who isn't an administrator. One of the many

ironies of this particular legislation is that it has nothing

whatsoever to do with restraint, nothing whatsoever to do with

improving education in the classroom. In fact, in some

[ Page 894 ]

school districts it will actually increase the number of administrators.

Any manager in our modern industrial society will tell you that if

an institution or a decision-making block becomes too big, or the thing

to be managed becomes so big, it becomes more expensive to manage for a

variety of reasons. You need a whole infrastructure of bureaucrats just

to be able to relay the messages on down and to hear the feedback on

back up. Everybody agrees that there is diseconomy of scale when the

scale is too large. I know the Premier would agree with that. When he

was talking about the CPR not being welcome in this province, he didn't

want big companies to become even bigger and to dominate our economy in

that way.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I see. The Premier does want big companies to dominate our economy.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You just got it wrong. I'll speak for myself. You can't handle your own stuff, so don't try....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I call all hon. members to order.

MR. GABELMANN: As I said, the school trustees are convinced —

and I agree with them — that one of the effects of this will be a

diseconomy of scale, that administrative costs in the overall education

system will in fact become even higher than they are now.

Another irony is that there would be increased costs in teachers'

salaries. Why would the minister design a system under this bill that

would create an incentive to keep salaries high? That is what the bill

does. There is, in fact, as they say, a disincentive to reduce the

average teacher's salaries by early retirement of the most expensive

teachers. In other words, the most expensive teachers will stay on.

There is a disincentive for teachers to use the collective bargaining

process to preserve jobs by reducing salaries. A whole rethinking is

taking place in our society about that subject. But as a result of this

legislation there is no incentive whatsoever for that particular

avenue, should it be chosen.

There is a disincentive, as they point out, to reduce fixed costs of

operations. Now why, if the government is interested in restraint — as

they say they are and demonstrate they are not — would they build into

this legislation a disincentive to reduce fixed costs? Why would they

build into it a disincentive to use plants, or the buildings and

facilities, as sources of revenue? That would be good financial

management, if it were allowed. But they don't do it.

There is a total lack of incentive, as a result of this legislation,

for energy-efficient investments, which a lot of schools have been

getting into and now won't get into. So now we will continue to have

the federal government subsidizing offshore oil, and we will continue

to waste energy in the way we do, perhaps because of the lack of

thinking that has gone into this legislation, but more likely because

the Premier has a messianic zeal to go down in history as having not

only talked about all these right-wing things that Margaret Thatcher

and Ronald Reagan talk about, but to actually introduce them in

legislation. It's as obvious through Bill 6 as it is through the other

legislation that the Premier has decided that three or four more years

of being Premier is enough, and that when he goes so goes the party. He

wants to destroy the party, but why is he taking the kids down with him

when he does it? That's what I would like to know.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the light is going to change colour

shortly, so I will begin to wrap up my remarks on this particular piece

of legislation.

More than anything, the issue in Bill 6 that bothers me is that the

government has taken its next step towards elimination of local

government. As I said earlier, that process began with Bill 89 and Bill

27, first of all taking away the right of school trustees to collect

taxes locally for the most part, then instructing them how to conduct

their business in terms of the school year. Now there is legislation

denying them the right to set their own budgets. What's next? Will

there actually be trustee elections this November, and if there are,

will there be a next time?

MR. REID: Yes. You can count on it.

MR. GABELMANN: I am told by the member for Surrey that I can

count on it. Based on what this Social Credit Party tells people and

then does, I cannot count on it whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that my time is almost up, I move

adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

[4:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 33

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Chabot

Reynolds

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. PARKS: It's my pleasure to rise and support Bill 6. It's

not just support; it is total, unequivocal support. I happen to have

had the honour — and I notice very few members of the opposition had a

similar honour — of sitting in this House and listening to the hon.

member for North Island (Mr.

[ Page 895 ]

Gabelmann) give what I take is the opposition's position with respect to Bill 6.

MR. REID: They've got no position.

MR. PARKS: That happens to be my conclusion too, hon. member.

They have no real position. As the 40 minutes droned on, I heard, "Let

the school trustees decide how the local taxpayers' money will be spent

on education," and, "What's wrong with the trustees, the locally

elected people, deciding where the money will be spent?" or — and it

sounded somewhat familiar — "The trustees will not have any control or

decision-making power over the educational needs in their school

districts." The only concern that I seemed to hear was something about

autonomy. I happen to be a parent; I have two young children, both of

school age. I'm not an educator or a former educator — my wife happens

to be one — but I have a very grave concern that the youth of our

province — and I trust everyone in this House will concur — is our

number one resource; I trust members will concur that a good, vibrant

education is very important; in fact, it's crucial to the long-term

growth of this province.

But I have another concern. That concern is as a taxpayer, because I

happen to think that my pockets are not bottomless. I'm sure I share

that concern with many other British Columbians. The hon. member didn't

seem to be too concerned about the realities of this life. Perhaps I

can address his attention to just a few of them. This government's

1983-84 budget forecasts some $8.3 billion worth of spending.

Interjections.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to assist me in gaining order in this House so that I may continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, each member will

have an opportunity to take his or her place in debate at some time.

Right now the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam has the floor and

should be afforded some courtesy.

MR. PARKS: As I was saying, we are forecasting an $8.3

billion budget. Of that, $1.6 billion is forecast as deficit. That's

almost 19 percent. Almost one out of every five dollars being expended

we're having to borrow; we're having to go further into debt.

MR. BLENCOE: Resign.

MR. PARKS: I don't think that it's necessary to listen to the

tripe about resignations or the necessity to resign. Rather than resign

might I suggest....

MR. REID: We represent good government and leadership.

MR. PARKS: Quit stealing my lines.

Rather than resigning, I can stand quite proudly and say that I'm

part of a government that has shown leadership. It is unfortunately the

only jurisdiction in this land that has shown the....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. When the Chair is

unable to hear the remarks of the member speaking because of

interjections, the Chair must at that time take some very strong

action. I will advise members that if the interjections continue at the

rate they are....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would advise the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) that when the Chair is addressing a

matter he will remain silent or he will be asked to leave the chamber.

I will advise all other members, whether they be opposition members or

government members, that an attempt to throw interjections into

conversation when, as I say, the Chair is unable to hear those remarks,

is neither fair, nor does it reflect the rules of this House.

MR. PARKS: This government was the one that last year

introduced restraint into our vocabulary — true restraint. Now we're

carrying through. But with respect to education, some very alarming

trends have begun to evolve.

In the last six fiscal periods we have seen school district budgets

increase by 19.34 percent. That's in real terms, taking into account

inflation and the true meaning of real dollars and real growth. In that

same time-period we have seen the number of pupils in this province

decrease significantly almost 42,000 fewer students today than there

were six years ago. That's an approximate 8 percent decrease in student

enrolment in this province. However, in the same six-year period we

have seen expenditures in this area race some 29.7 percent ahead of

inflation. One could conclude, Mr. Speaker, that education spending was

out of control. That might not be relevant to learned opposition

members, but I'm sure even the members of the opposition, being

taxpayers and representing taxpayers, would be very concerned about

that trend.

Last year you saw restraint measures implemented which capped, which

gave a global budget to your school districts, and you saw school

districts having to show the first signs of restraint. However, did

that serve the bill? Did that solve the problem? Might I suggest that

it did not, because tremendous inequities have developed over the past

few years. It has gotten to the point where you have one school

district in the lower mainland that has an average cost per student of

$2,983, and another one with a cost of $3,920. I would suggest that

that's a terribly unrealistic variation in a matter of just a very few

miles. The reason it would appear to be is that there hasn't been a

truly viable system of financial management. That is what this bill is

about.

[5:00]

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is going to bring about, for the first time

in many decades, or so it would appear, a viable system of financial

management. It is going to give the Ministry of Education, and the

minister in particular, the ability to monitor education costs in this

province.

When you have a budget in the realm of $1.4 billion — a mere 16

percent increase over the last fiscal period — it would be somewhat

difficult to suggest, even for the hon. members of the opposition, that

we're not caring or concerned with the quality of education in this

province. In fact, of course, we are. That is why the financial

management system has been constructed the way it is. It has been

constructed with nine separate functions, and within those

functions.... I'm really distressed to see that the hon. member

[ Page 896 ]

for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who was so

concerned about this bill, has seen fit to sneak out, or is about to

sneak out of the House.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

You have nine functions, and of those nine functions, the one that

deals with administration is the one that has been given the red

circle, if I may put it that way. The one function that the minister

and the ministry staff are tremendously concerned about is the apparent

lack of control that there has been in the administration budgets of

school districts throughout the province. Having said that I should

add, because I would be remiss if I didn't, that my school district and

that of the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), School District

43, is one of the more efficiently run school districts in this

province. I think that gives me some insight into the other districts

that don't show the same financial acumen in administering their school

districts.

Bill 6 does not reduce autonomy of the local school boards; rather

it increases the autonomy. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to summarize

— and I have to summarize because the list could be terribly extensive

and almost boring, it's so long — some of the areas in which the local

school boards retain autonomy. They have full autonomy over capital in

the facilities. Capital budgets deal with selection of sites,

buildings, renovations, overall facilities, busing, boarding and

community use of schools. They also have total autonomy over programs,

school boundaries, grade groupings in schools, locally developed

courses, elective courses, supplemental materials, summer schools,

adult education and special education programs.

The school trustees also have total autonomy over final approval of

staff selection, assignment of staff, transfer of staff, evaluation of

staff, promotion, dismissal and reduction of staff.

MR. REID: Do you think they can handle that?

MR. PARKS: Of course I think they can handle that, because I

do have faith in the local school boards and the locally elected school

trustees.

However, since the vast majority of the budget for school districts

throughout the province comes from the provincial government, surely it

makes sense that the minister in charge of that function should have

some supervisory control, and that is what this bill is all about.

So long as school boards act in a responsible fashion there will be

no need for the minister in charge of education to do anything other

than assist them with this financial management program. They now have

a program where they can compare costs among school districts. They can

compare actual per student costs. They're not going to get flim-flammed

into this pupil-teacher ratio, with educators or noneducators and

administrative staff all being lumped in. Its going to be accurate,

proper financial information and reporting. With the actual financial

information, proper policies can be implemented and proper programs

will be implemented.

It is really unfortunate that the hon. member for North Island has left because

he was complaining that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has not

seen fit to partake in the consultative program. I happen to have here, Mr.

Speaker, a letter from one of the executive members of the BCSTA, and I think

the comments he makes in it are worthy of repetition for the entire House. It

is actually addressed to the Premier:

"On Thursday, July 21, 1983, the BCSTA executive met

with members of the Social Credit caucus. As a member at that meeting,

I'd like to offer some personal observations. First, the meeting was

very well attended, with 28 MLAs present. Such a reception was not only

cordial but impressive.

"The thrust of the BCSTA presentation, which I'm sure

you're aware of by now, involves the wording of sections 1(

a) and (

b) of Bill 6.

"The remarks made by the BCSTA vice-president and our

immediate past president following the caucus meeting were, in my

humble opinion, irresponsible and neither deserved nor called for as a

result of the fair and courteous reception the BCSTA experienced.

"Personally, I have no trouble with any aspect of the new legislation as it pertains to school board governance."

Now it gets very good.

"As a positive thinker and private-sector realist, I

can see in Bill 6 a challenge for school boards to assume a greater

degree of autonomy than ever before by ensuring in each of their

districts that the enabling aspects of that particular legislation" —

referring to Bill 6 — "do not have to be invoked by the minister

responsible. I also believe that by responding in a locally responsible

manner, they may by example pave the way in time for repeal of certain

portions of the said act."

I don't need to quote the balance of that letter, because the key

point has been made. The legislation is phrased in the enabling

fashion. It says the minister "may"; it doesn't say "shall." As the

explanatory notes indicate, it's a system being devised, a bill being

put forth, to assist in the supervision of school board budgets and

education throughout the province.

Interjections.

MR. PARKS: I apologize for not advising the House whose

letter I was quoting. It's the letter of a Mr. Don McIntosh from

Kelowna. I'd be pleased to table a copy of the letter with the House.

I think the people of British Columbia are beginning to understand

what the opposition in their protracted debates, not only on Bill 6 but

on the entire legislative package....

This morning there appeared — it was quite timely, I should note — a

letter to the editor. Since I've seen members of the opposition grope

for support for their position, referring to letters to the editor, I

would suggest there is a balance in those columns. I would note that

this letter, in my opinion, accurately reflects the opinion of the

majority of the people in this province. As I said, in this morning's Province the following letter to the editor appeared:

"Crawford Killian, Province

education writer, complains that government actions are brutal measures

'against teachers, administrators and trustees.' Apologists for the

system like Killian often miss the point of education. It's for

children, not the convenience of teachers, administrators or trustees."

I'm sure that comment is shared by the vast majority of British Columbians. The author goes on:

[ Page 897 ]

"I am fed up with educators and their apologists who

always complain about teacher jobs and lack of taxing control when the

prime concern should be whether the needs of children will be served.

If more parents were allowed in decision-making, you can be sure

children's needs would come first!

"If we come down to rock bottom, we don't necessarily

need teachers nor masses of money for education to happen. But we will

always need good models and mentors for our children. Parents concerned

that the public schools will be a battleground this fall are already

asking questions about alternatives, such as vouchers, home education,

computers and private schools."

I find it most disconcerting that parents are

thinking about the necessity of considering alternatives to our public

school system. We have, in my opinion, one of the finest public school

systems in this country, if not in the Western world. The only thing

that a measure like Bill 6 can bring about is a further improvement of

that public school system. The author concludes:

"Our present government school system has been

steadily, over a decade, losing public confidence and credibility, and

until we can institute some strong measures of public accountability, I

predict this disaffection will continue to grow."

That's from one Tunya Audain of West Vancouver. I

think that is a fine example of what is happening in our province.

Rather than listen to the negativism — worrying about teachers and

teacher-pupil ratios — it's time to remember that we are coming through

some very tough economic times. We do have a horrendous deficit.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You're taking it out on little kids.

MR. PARKS: The hon. member suggests that the bill and

legislation like this is taking it out on the kids. How sad that this

hon. member has to throw out that tripe. We are not worried about....

MR. BLENCOE: What happened to the child-abuse team?

Interjections.

MR. PARKS: It is sad, Mr. Speaker, when the opposition have

to turn to fearmonger tactics and say that we are picking on the

children of this society, when in fact you can see special-education

programs specifically mentioned in the bill. They are specifically

being guaranteed by the policy of the Education minister. If the

concern wasn't there, the locally elected school board could have the

special-education program suffer, in a spate of cutting for the mere

sake of cutting.

MR. BLENCOE: Evil government.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The second

member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) mentioned that we were an evil

government. I find that remark personally offensive, and I would ask

him to withdraw it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On the same point of order, the member, I

believe, was referring to the whole government and not to any

individual member. Therefore I believe he was in order.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, as a member of that government I find that personally offensive, and I would ask the member to withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will ask the second member for Victoria, if he imputed any dishonourable motive to another member, to withdraw it.

MR. BLENCOE: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. That is fine.

MR. BLENCOE: ...because it's true, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. I will now ask the hon. second member for Victoria to withdraw: an unqualified withdrawal, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the remark that it is true.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member withdraws any imputation of dishonourable motive?

MR. BLENCOE: Toward any individual member, yes, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

[5:15]

MR. PARKS: Before the opposition's improper remarks were

made, I was commenting on the hon. member for Mackenzie's suggestion

that the government and this bill are attacking the children. That's

preposterous. In fact, in any meetings that the Minister of Education

has had, or in any policy being enunciated by the Ministry of

Education, it has been very clearly set out that the proposed changes

in this legislation are to limit the amounts spent on district

administration. They specifically guarantee special-education programs

for handicapped children. Only in other areas do the locally elected,

autonomous school boards have full jurisdiction. There has to be the

opportunity for the ministry to have some overriding control in

different segments of the global school board budget. All the school

trustees have to do is work within the boundaries and guidelines that

have been set out, and there will be no need for any of the draconian

measures that I keep hearing being suggested from my colleagues on my

right.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Left.

MR. PARKS: Wouldn't it be interesting if they were on my right?

MR. BLENCOE: You're the extreme right. You're off the spectrum.

MR. PARKS: There's no question, Mr. Speaker. I'm prepared to

take some of the remarks being cast at me that I am clearly a little bit to

the right of most of the hon. members in the opposition. I don't say that

in any sense of shame; I say

[ Page 898 ]

that with a great amount of pride. Not only am I a

little bit farther to the right than all of the members of the

opposition but I think I have a much keener understanding of the

realities and the necessities in this world to endorse the concepts of

private enterprise and to endorse the concepts that.... Without an

extremely healthy private sector and without an extremely healthy and

buoyant economy, how are we going to have the jobs that produce the

money that produces the taxes that enable us to pay for things like

education? We must have a healthy private sector and a free enterprise

system. I don't think anyone who can analyze the situation carefully

can deny that, even though they do on occasion try to.

I don't see any great need to go on any longer. The bill is very

short. The purpose that is being tendered can be summarized very

succinctly: it's going to bring about stable, accurate financial

management in the education system in this province. The facts

unequivocally show that such a new system is required and long overdue,

and I support it wholeheartedly.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Personal references are most unparliamentary, hon. member.

MR. MITCHELL: I find it quite interesting when we rise in

these debates and get into — I guess — some of the traditions of what

we're here for and what we are embarking on, and where we're going.

Before we get into this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, we maybe should

review some of the traditions of parliament and some of the traditions

of why we are here, why you are sitting where you are. I've made this

speech before and I'm going to make it again; I think it's important,

because on that side of the House — and we are discussing education —

there are a few slow learners. If you look into the traditions of

parliaments, Mr. Speaker, we do have a tradition that we have a throne

speech where the L-G leads off and tells us some of the directions

we're going to go. He leaves little hints that we're going to deal with

Bill 6. Did that get me back on the subject?

Following that, each member rises in his place and gives his ideas

and needs for his constituency. Traditionally the government listen to

that, they make little notes, and they bring in the budget speech. Then

we debate the budget speech. Part of that budget speech was Bill 6.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure the hon. member is going to relate his remarks to the bill before us.

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm just bringing

up some of the background of why we are on Bill 6. Traditionally before

we get into legislation like Bill 6 — for you new members, especially

"Landslide" down here, who was a little late in coming in — we debate

such things as the estimates. We debate the education estimates. We

debate the money that is available, allocated in the budget. And we set

up the position that we are in today, after we have gone through the

budget speech and the estimates; then we deal with the legislation like

Bill 6.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could I have order, please. The member has strayed a bit during introductory remarks, but I'm

sure now the comments are going to be relevant to the principle of the

bill before us at this time. The hon. members will not interrupt.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm referring to some of the notes

that I've made from the previous speaker, when he talked about the $8

billion budget. You never ruled him out of order when he talked about

that figure as part of the budget, when he talked about the $1.6

billion deficit. You never interrupted and said that he was straying. I

don't think he was straying. He's straying out the door now. He's not

going to